tv [untitled] September 24, 2010 3:00am-3:30am PST
maintain the building that they no longer can enjoy the benefits that were allowed when the buildings were built. we do allow people to maintain when does even if they don't meet today's code. we are further instructed to do so under the california health and safety code. we do our best to enforce light and the ventilation property line issues. we take it very seriously. there was an error, i think, made by the permit older that said it 25% opening is permitted, that is only when your 3-5 feet from the property, not from the adjoining structure, but it doesn't apply in this case anyway because we're talking about repair and
maintenance. we would support the upholding of this permit. >> is there any public comment on this item? we can move into rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> i would like to say that it remains our contention that this act of the windows is an alteration, one that is subject to california building code, and that being the case, the question whether or not things were grandfathered in, the fact that the window was done without a permit initially and
subsequently won was obtained, that doesn't rectify other issues regarding the proximity of the window to my client's property. if the board is inclined to uphold the permit, i would propose that perhaps we can offer some type of compromise, perhaps that the windows themselves can be fixed windows. windows that are not operational, so that it would allow the sunlight that was mentioned by the respondents, and it would alleviate concerns that my clients have. if that is the case, the chance of them being subject to such hazards, with that, i submit
this matter to the board. >> thank you very much. i understand what he mentioned. we obtained the proper permits, we did the work professionally. we improved our property, and we also improved their privacy issue and the noise factor is much lower. this is a win-win situation for everyone. we think that they should be happy about these new windows, and we don't understand what they want us to do with them still. we ask you to uphold our permanent so that we can finish renovations and protect our home. it will want to maintain our home and want to be good neighbors. we want to increase communication with them as well. >> we have not opened these windows since we moved into the
house to measure the distances between our house and the neighboring house. >> we don't intend on opening the windows. we don't want to invade their privacy. we appreciate that we haven't heard them either. they have been polite to us. this is not a fight that we think is going to be nasty. we will be quiet and we don't intend on opening these windows. we really want to maintain relationships. >> anything further from the department? >> shall i start, or do you prefer? commissioner fung: i always like to start first. >> i am sympathetic to the
appellant. their fire hazard concern and a loud parties concerned. it sounds like those issues were issues that had to do with the previous occupant of the building next door, so the building is 110 years old, the windows were probably there when the building was built, and to me, they are in the same location, a little bit smaller. they have better glass and it seems to me that the appellants -- i am in favor of the preservation of our old building, even though sometimes it means that we end up with windows in strange places. there are windows all over the place where they wouldn't be
approved. i would be inclined to deny the appeal. >> that was very well said and i have nothing to add. >> i appreciate the town. i agree and i understand issues of proximity. we all have to face those, but i do appreciate the tone of the permit older and the civility that has been going on. i have listened very carefully to the compromise position, and the think that given the placement of the adjacent window, if that is not a fixed window, it will not make a difference as far as malaise. it is not really going to help that in my opinion. in the interest of time, i am
not going to say anything else. >> i am in agreement. their glass is still transparent, and the fact is, they have not had to replace theirs. in terms of acoustic property -- i am hopeful that they will be able to shake hands after words and continue their living. >> i move that we deny the appeal and uphold the permit. >> i understand that it is maintenance and repair, it complies with building code?
appellant. i am her architect. she is appealing approval for neighbors proposed addition and the rescission -- the decision of discretionary review. the documents not considered are in two categories. the document requested but not produced was a shadow study requested in the review of the proposed design. page 9 of the review is a copy of the notes showing that the study requested be provided. it would be helpful and clarifying where this will cast shadows. the documents are two sections of the san francisco general plan.
hill. it appears that these documents were overlooked during a planning review. currently there are no policies governing solar access. building construction was one of the most expensive the endeavors that humans undertake. this is expensive incrementally and emotionally. when we build in an urban setting, this is difficult for the neighbors and the property owners. san francisco as tools in place to make sure that what we build this the best it can be.
some of them are overlooked in the review progress. we urge you to grant the appeal and a choir the planning department to review the project in regards to all of the tools that have been provided including the general plan. this is the best it can be for both the property owner in the neighborhood. thank you for your time and attention. >> thank you for your time. as a property owner, i am of two
at the laws and get the shade steady. >> did she phot for the dr? >> she said that there is nothing that we have here in which others are environmental -- she said there is nothing which can shape an equitable discussion on this project. that is what someone shocked me. >> i had a quick question that is based on something that you
just said. you said something about the loss of 25%-40% of your energy. where did you get your figure? >> i came up with that figure from the pg&e website about daylighting. >> do you have solar panels on your home that are affected by this development? >> no, i don't have solar panels. the project was severely impacted by this. in fact, i have a letter that they wanted me to read to you
because they were talking about the remarks that were made. >> you don't have a report that would back up this loss? >> i could get a report. the thing that will show it in this particular case it is a shadow steady which could be easily done with any modern program. that is really specific. that is the average. >> can you put the exhibit to up? >> i am not used to overheads.
>> good evening. i am the home alert at 675 arkansas street. the design i submitted meets all the planning department regulations and this is more conservative than what is allowed. the planning approved the design application. the planning department rejected the request for discretionary review. without any legitimate basis, the pill should be denied. it is argued that this is against the showcase review. this is impossible since we don't live in the showplace square. i might not have reviewed their
>> plan, she said. she attached a different plan which she says is actable -- is applicable. this suggests that our homes are in showcase square but they are not. if you look, this is above and to the left of our home. the plan also describes where it is and qualitatively, this is a warehouse in an industrial district has recently been
developed. it describes this as a former light industrial area. by contrast, our neighborhood has no industry. there is not even a corner store within four blocks. turning to the general plan and the renewable energy plan, these plants are implicated by my design. if my design was improper under the general plan, nothing could be developed in this city. as for the quotes that were taken out of context, i will say this.